High Court for State of TelanganaWP/29508/2015disposed of no costs

Mohammad Lqbal, v. The State Of Telangana,

2015-09-21A Ramalingeswara Rao4 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29508 OF 2015 Date: 21-09-2015 Between:

Mohammad Iqbal ... Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep.by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

... Respondents

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29508 of 2015 O R D E R:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner claims to have purchased Pick UP LMV Vehicle bearing No.AP-22-Y-2446 on 01-07-2015 by entering into an agreement with the original owner Mohd.Hanif. The said vehicle was seized in respect of the proceedings in C1/136/2015 before the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in not releasing the said vehicle and seizing the same without following due process of law. The learned Government Pleader produced before this Court a counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the proceedings are initiated against one Shahnawaz R/o.H.No.17-1-182/B/48, Salar Nagar, Hyderabad as he committed irregularity in

diverting essential commodities meant for Public Distribution System.

One Mohd.Ibrahim drove the vehicle at the time of its seizure. As per the data available on R.T.A. website, the vehicle is in the name of Mohd.Hanif and not in the name of the petitioner. The case is under trial and now posted to 25-09-2015. The petitioner is no way concerned with the said case nor with the vehicle.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of agreement entered on 01-072015, the said vehicle was purchased and he would satisfy the concerned authority by filing proper documents and he may be given liberty to submit appropriate petition before the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file petition before the 2nd respondent and if the 2nd respondent is satisfied with the documents filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle seized, he shall consider the release of the vehicle with usual conditions.

In consequence, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.

21-09-2015 Note:

Issue C.C. in three days.

B/o.

nvl